DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 6-13, and 20-21 in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “the at least skin layers”. It is unclear as to what is meant by the limitation “the at least skin layers” but for compact prosecution, Examiner assumes the term “the at least two skin layers” for proper antecedent basis and in light of the specification. Claims 2-3, 6-7, 11-13, and 20-21 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the skin layer further comprises the HDPE”. Since there are at least two skin layers, it is not clear which skin layer would comprise HDPE. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the skin layer comprises the narrow-CD mLLDPE”. Since there are at least two skin layers, it is not clear which skin layer would comprise the narrow-CD mLLDPE. Claim 10 is rejected as dependent upon claim 8. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the skin layer further comprises LDPE”. Since there are at least two skin layers, it is not clear which skin layer would comprise LDPE. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11-13, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (WO 2018/106480) with evidence from Exceed™ 1018HA Technical Datasheet (Hereafter “Exceed Datasheet) and Enable™ 20-05HH Technical Datasheet (Hereafter “Enable Datasheet).
Zhu discloses a multilayer polyethylene film. Concerning claim 1, Zhu discloses the multilayer film comprises at least two skin layers and a core layer, wherein the multilayer film comprises a first polyethylene resin that is an Exceed™ metallocene ethylene-alpha olefin copolymer having a melt index (I2) of 0.5 to 5 g/10 min, a CDBI of 5 to 85%, a MWD of 1.5 to 5.5, and as evidenced by the Exceed Datasheet, has a peak melting temperature of 118°C (para. 0036-0038; Examples). Given that the instant specification recites that Exceed™ resins are narrow-CD metallocene LLDPE resins and the peak melting temperature is within the range as claimed, the Vicat softening temperature would also be within the claimed range. The multilayer further comprises a fourth polyethylene resin that is an Enable™ resin that is a metallocene ethylene-hexene resin that has a melt index (I2) of 0.1 to 5 g/10 min, a CDBI greater than 50%, a MWD of 2.5 to 5.5, and a branching index from 0.7 to 0.95 (para. 0041-0044; Examples). As evidenced by the Enable Datasheet, the specific resin has melt index (I2) of 0.5 g/10 min and since the instant specification recites that Enable™ resins are commercial LCB mLLDPE resins, the Enable™ resins of Zhu is considered to be LCB mLLDPE resins.
The Exceed™ and Enable™ resins each are ethylene-hexene resin, wherein the alpha-olefin is found at a content of 1 to 6 wt% of the hexene (para. 0033-0034). The resulting multilayer film is biaxially oriented and has the claimed polyethylene content (para. 0064-0067; Examples). Regarding the limitation of the narrow-CD mLLDPE and LCB mLLDPE resins included in different layers with respect to one another, it is noted that an embodiment contemplated by the disclosure of the Zhu is that one of the skin layers can contain only the first polyethylene resin and the other skin layer can contain the first and the fourth, resulting in different layers containing the resins as claimed in claims 1, 11, and 13. With respect to claim 12, processing additives such as antiblock and slip agents can be added at a content of 0.01 wt% to about 50 wt%, which would overlap and include the claimed content when taken with respect to 100 parts resin (para. 0049-0050).
Concerning claims 20 and 21, the process to produce the multilayer film is a blown film process which would include double bubble blown film processes (para. 0064-0067). Alternatively, these are product-by-process limitations and since the structure is the same, the process limitations are not given patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art is silent to the specific polymers as claimed in claim 1 in the specific structural layers as claimed in claims 2-4. Furthermore, it would have been hindsight to place each polymer in the structural layer as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al. (WO 2019/027524).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783